X (fill in the name of a video game, reality television show or intricately plotted series like "24") may appear to be (pick one: mindless, stupid or violent). But X actually inculcates important survival skills. X shows how to test ideas, figure out which ones work and grasp the full sequence of steps that must be taken to achieve a certain goal. X makes you mentally alert, even if you appear to be slack-jawed and glassy-eyed. X makes you smarter.Janet Maslin injects some skepticism. Reading her her review of Steven Johnson's "Everything Bad Is Good For You," I got the feeling that Johnson is someone who's thrown tons of time into playing video games, much of that time plagued by criticism echoing in his head -- you're wasting your life -- and plenty more of that time coming up with good-boy answers to that voice. I guess there was only so far he could go with claiming to be improving "eye-hand coordination," and he came up with his ideas about how much his mind was developing through his encounters with the challenges of the game. And that wasn't even counting the mental workout he was getting thinking up the big explanation, talking to that mother in his head.
Or writing it all up into a book. We're proud of you. Thought you'd amount to nothing. But now we're proud!
But the rest of you game-players. Don't let Johnson soothe you too much. You really might be wasting time.
Posts
10 comments:
I had a somewhat friend in high school and though college who swore by video games for eye-hand coordination. Maybe it was all hokey.
But... He was the fasted slalom racer as in high school in Colorado back then, and went on to have a skiing scholarship to CU, and then went pro at 20.
He had blindingly fast reflexes, which is why he was so good at slalom. And he would hone those reflexes however he could.
But the reality, of course, is that eye hand coordination is not that important for most of us. As a patent attorney, it is quite a ways down on the list (thankfully). Behind, for example, the ability to sit still for long periods of time - wait, maybe you could hone that with video games.
Some of the finest athletes I've ever known spend most of their free time playing video games. I myself prefer to just watch people play video games, which should give you an idea of how untalented and dumb I am.
As for reality shows, I agree that the better ones like Survivor and American Idol are far more nuanced and intellectually engaging than things like Law & Order or Yes, Dear. Saying things like this out loud isn't very cool I suppose.
When did it become legitimate to judge a book's arguments solely on the strength of a negative review someone else has written?
Based on my limited experience of post-Atari gaming, I'm not sure how exclusively video games rely on hand-eye coordination. Most of the ones that I've played (primarily the notorious Grand Theft Auto series) involve quite a bit of thought-- most of the challenges in the games come down to problem-solving rather than brute force or dexterity. We're certainly not talking about the NYT crossword here, but they're certainly far more demanding than even a well-done action movie. In fact, part of the reason that I've got a barely-touched PS2 downstairs is the fact that most of the games for it are more intellectually involving than I'd like-- if I want to expend that much energy, I'll just read a good book....
Price writes "When did it become legitimate to judge a book's arguments solely on the strength of a negative review someone else has written?"
Well, I did also read that other article everyone linked to.
But I'd say this is a book with one main idea, which connects to an ordinary experience -- consuming pop culture -- that we're all familiar with. I think we can react to that idea, which is a contribution to a conversation that we're all already engaged in. I don't feel obliged to read this book at all. And it is a book that's opinionated about what's a waste of time and what isn't. I have my own ideas on the subject and have decided reading this whole book would waste my time. Do I have to waste my time to find out if I'm right?
JB: Speaking of soy, I'm going to do a post about soy. Thanks for reminding me. And your phrase "hanging out with friends, developing interpersonal relationships," reminds me that the most complex activity really is relating to other human beings and learning how to understand how they think and feel and how you affect them. A video game is nothing compared to that. And you never get to see the score. You never even get to find out what people really think. You may never know how well you've done. Your own happiness? You never even really know how happy you are. A video game is a refuge of simplicity by comparison -- even though the upside is so much more limited.
Honestly, it depends on the video game. Some games you can play almost automatically, but some are very immersive and require a huge investment of attention.
Coincidentally, I just wrote a blog post about Doom 3 that captures some of this. That game will suck you in and totally mess with you; really get your heart pumping (even Lileks has been blogging about it). It provides engagement and mental stimulation that has nothing to do with hand-eye coordination.
And its not just "twitch reaction" stimulation either. One of my favorite games is the old Deus Ex, which mixed first-person-shooter action with a philosophical look at how changing technology will impact humanity in the future. At one point you end up getting into an argument with an AI program about whether or not data-mining artificial intelligence programs (functionally omniscient) would replace God in the future. Not to mention it had a great conspiracy plot that involved the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, FEMA, the UN, etc.
Some games are far more valuable and engaging than the supposedly more worthwhile pursuits out there. All mediums have their trash. I've read plenty of bad books, or seen bad plays, etc., and the time I spent on those things would have been far better used playing a good game.
And now I'll stop before I make myself sound like an even bigger geek than I already have.
JB: I think just about everyone needs to back away from an undiluted personal encounter with another human being except on very rare occasions. It's really too much just to look into someone's eyes and talk about true, deep feelings. Terrifyingly difficult and dangerous. We've got to do something else -- shopping, sports, movies -- in order to connect. Some buffer zone is needed if you're to have a relationship at all. If you could really tell what other people think and feel -- how could you stand it? If they could tell what you think and feel -- well, you'd have to get away from them or tone down your thoughts and feelings to avoid awful fights.
Here was my defense of reading -- as a highly engaged, anything but passive activity -- compared to TV and videogames.
- amba
An ex of mine is a flight instructor and he spent a fair amount of time playing around with flight simulators. I'm sure that it focused his mind on flying when he couldn't - but I don't think that the company he worked for was interested in simulator hours so much as actual, in-flight hours.
Having actually read the book, this is my point of view. He doesn't defend video games or things like survivor as pinnacles of intellect. His largest point is that, even though all these things can be totally moronic, they're way better than similar things we would amuse ourselves with 50 years ago. Intellectually speaking, a modern game or reality tv show is way better than tetris or "I love lucy" both in terms of complexity and the amount of thought required( ie to fill in information not given to you obviously).
Playing a game is not going to make you an intellectual genius, but it WILL help exercise mental muscle.
One comparison that he makes that I liked is comparing games to story questions in math books, or logic puzzles. Questions like "If bob and jane and ted share 140 dollars in a 4:5:7 ratio, how much did Jane get?", while in terms of story are stupid, and aren't even very complex, help to train our minds to do more complex things.
I'm a performer and instructor of saxophone, and one of my top high-school students from a few years ago was/is a championship-caliber video game player (as in he entered tournaments and won money). He swears to this day that most of his eye-hand coordination on the saxophone came from playing Beatmania.
Post a Comment